Is this suggesting that the broadcast was not the source of the tort? How can the manufacturer be held responsible for what the buyer did with the property?
Knock, knock??
What you need to know is that the system didn't record at a real-time rate of 30 frames per second, but at something like 5 frames a second. So everything looked exagerrated and outrageously violent.
I saw a re-enactment of this specific case on a Court TV show a couple of months ago. They showed somebody in a split-screen of 5 frames per second and 30 frames per second doing simple stuff like picking up a doll and putting it in a crib, and it showed exactly how false this "evidence" was.
Yes, I say the camera/recorder manufacturer is solely responsible for her imprisonment.
"How can the manufacturer be held responsible for what the buyer did with the property? "
Same argument applies to firearms... or anything for that matter...